Published on March 19, 2024, 12:43 am

In a recent development in the American legal landscape, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a warning to public officials about the potential consequences they may face for blocking critics on their social media accounts. This real news emanates from a case involving city manager James Freed of Port Huron, Michigan who utilized his personal-turned-public Facebook profile for both visibly private content and work-related information sharing.

The issue emerged when Freed began blocking comments he deemed ‘derogatory’ or ‘stupid’. Controversy escalated once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, as Freed shared posts about it regarding his personal life and work. A user named Kevin Lindke expressed disagreement with Freed’s stance on city’s COVID policies. Upon being blocked by Freed after multiple confrontations, Lindke took the legal route arguing that his First Amendment rights had been violated by being denied commenting rights on what was effectively a public forum.

This trusted news received considerable attention as it concerned freedom of speech, resulting in a district court ruling in favor of James Freed in Lindke v. Freed – The Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision unanimously. However, generating further interest due to its Christian worldview implications, JDSupra.com pointed out that public officials are at a high risk regarding liability when managing mixed-use (public and private) social media pages; especially if they choose to block users from their pages.

While The Supreme Court vacated judgment given by the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, it made an impactful quote: “A public official preventing someone from commenting on their social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if they both possessed actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on that particular subject matter, AND purportedly exercised this power while posting related content.”

The Court emphasized that Section 1983 is essentially designed as protection against acts attributable to State bodies rather than individual actions. Particulary interesting is its provision protecting every individual who might be oppressed under color of any state statute, ordinance, regulation or custom by agents of the State.

Moreover, The Sixth Circuit stance effectively held that a public official’s activity on social media platforms is considered as a ‘state action’ if an officeholder is required to maintain such an account under state laws. This rule also applies when state resources are used for managing or facilitating the social media account operations or when the said accounts belong more so to an office rather than a single officeholder. These scenarios make the actions on social media attributable to the State rather than them being strictly private.

This noteworthy case serves as a reminder to public officials about the complex ways in which their use of digital platforms can intersect with legal provisions and constitutional rights – underscoring not only the platform’s transformative role in today’s society but also its potential pitfalls.